MyrnaM said,

Firstly I am shocked that you thought the Judas reference was meant for you. I only mentioned his name because if I didn't someone would come along to correct me, for saying they "ALL" served God.

Fair enough.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe its not the end yet... at least not the end in the eyes of God.  It only makes sense that in the end SHE WILL REIGN.  With or without Fatima.

I thought that in the end CHRIST WILL REIGN. Have I got that wrong?

What I was asking was - do you believe that the Holy Father will consecrate Russia, that Russia will be converted and that a period of peace will be granted to the world?

This is part of the message of Fatima.  According to Sister Lucy, this is what Our Lady said. Do you believe this will happen?

Who put you in charge of when the end will be?  Why worry about it, your end will come when you die, as mine will.  We are called to think of that, till then pray for your loved ones.  As the Bible says, "Watch and Pray".

I don't recall saying that anyone put me in charge of when the end will be.

I suggest your write to Christopher Ferrara for answers, since he is the one who wrote your book that you put so much faith in.

And I don't recall saying that I put any faith at all in Christopher Ferrara's book.  I mentioned it as an example of the time and effort that has been spent on the Secret of Fatima.

OHCA said,

Quote

The notion of your thread, "If Fatima is real; and if Sister Lucy followed then NO; then we too should follow the NO," attributes to such an instrument of the Lord used at Fatima as being God-like, omniscient, sinless, and infallible.  I used the term saint-like as a rough summary.  But this even goes beyond saint-like.

The whole notion that you posit is that if Fatima is real, then Sister would not have, or could not have, marched into conciliardom if doing so was wrong.  This does not follow.  But why would God have let it play out like this?

So, the popes, the cardinals, the bishops, priests, monks, nuns who marched into conciliardom - they are all just fallible human beings, marked by original sin, imperfect but not essentially at fault.

Because that is where your argument leads.

Furthermore, in order to resist the march into conciliardom, Sister Lucy would have had to have been - "God-like, omniscient, sinless, and infallible" - to use your own words.

Where does that leave Traditionalists who reject Vatican II?

You are a knucklehead and you're putting words in my mouth.

What you posited in your titling this thread, at it's essence, is that anyone who believes in "Fatima" should follow Lucy's NO example.  Are you too dumb to realize that the implication of your question is that if Fatima is true, then the NO must be right because of Lucy's example?  What does one have to do with the other?  You're query assumes that if Fatima is true, then the NO must be good because of Lucy's example.  The only way that that would necessarily be true would be if Lucy was God-like, omniscient, infallible, and sinless, which she was not.

". . . are all . . . imperfect but not essentially at fault.

"Because that is where your argument leads."

Try some rather than all, Logic-King.

I did not say that Lucy would have had to have been God-like, omniscient, infallible, sinless, etc., to have avoided marching into conciliardom.  I am saying that she would have, in addition to being a mere instrument in Fatima (if it's even real), would have had to have been those things for the faithful to have rightfully blindly marched into conciliardom solely based on her example.  You're saying that if Fatima is true, then the NO is necessarily good based on Lucy's example.  That's the biggest bunch of horseshit logic that I can imagine at the moment.

OHCA said,

You are a knucklehead and you're putting words in my mouth.

What you posited in your titling this thread, at it's essence, is that anyone who believes in "Fatima" should follow Lucy's NO example.  Are you too dumb to realize that the implication of your question is that if Fatima is true, then the NO must be right because of Lucy's example?  What does one have to do with the other?  You're query assumes that if Fatima is true, then the NO must be good because of Lucy's example.  The only way that that would necessarily be true would be if Lucy was God-like, omniscient, infallible, and sinless, which she was not.

". . . are all . . . imperfect but not essentially at fault.

"Because that is where your argument leads."

Try some rather than all, Logic-King.

I did not say that Lucy would have had to have been God-like, omniscient, infallible, sinless, etc., to have avoided marching into conciliardom.  I am saying that she would have, in addition to being a mere instrument in Fatima (if it's even real), would have had to have been those things for the faithful to have rightfully blindly marched into conciliardom solely based on her example.  You're saying that if Fatima is true, then the NO is necessarily good based on Lucy's example.  That's the biggest bunch of horse#### logic that I can imagine at the moment.

 :really-mad2:

Sister Lucy was replaced by an imposter.  No question about it.  This is by no means "crazy" talk just because it sounds sensational.  Communists were very practiced in the art of replacing people with doubles.

Sister Lucy probably died in the early- to mid- 1960s.  She was told that she would live to see the fulfillment of the Third Secret, which clearly had to do with Vatican II and most likely the illegitimate election of John XXIII.

One reason I could think of would be just your point in starting this thread.  

What is the FULL Title of your thread here?

Sister Lucy attended the Novus Ordo for decades, shouldn't we follow her example.

MyrnaM said,

One reason I could think of would be just your point in starting this thread.  

What is the FULL Title of your thread here?

Sister Lucy attended the Novus Ordo for decades, shouldn't we follow her example.

But they had almost the entire hierarchy supporting Vatican II. That was more than enough to persuade Catholics to accept the Novus Ordo.  Why would they go to all the trouble of setting up a fake Sister Lucy as well, when they had the backing of so many heavyweights?

Also, there was no Traditionalist movement around in the late 50s and early 60s, the time when the real Sister Lucy is supposed to have died and been replaced by an imposter.


Ascent said,

An imposter Lucia is more evidence that the Vatican has been rotten to the core for a long time. This was not some mistake that got overlooked. It's a policy of deception that goes on to this very day. It's more proof that the message from Our Lady of La Salette has been coming to fruition. The full crystallization will be when Rome becomes the seat of the anti-Christ - a Jєω.

But according to St Cyril of Jerusalem, the seat of the Antichrist will be the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, (Catechetical Lecture 15, para 15):

.... Who opposes and exalts himself against all that is called God, or that is worshipped .... so that he seats himself in the temple of God .... What temple then? He means, the Temple of the Jєωs which has been destroyed. For God forbid that it should be the one in which we are! Why say we this? That we may not be supposed to favour ourselves. For if he comes to the Jєωs as Christ, and desires to be worshipped by the Jєωs, he will make great account of the Temple, that he may more completely beguile them; making it supposed that he is the man of the race of David, who shall build up the Temple which was erected by Solomon.....

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310115.htm

MyraM said,

So if he [the devil] can instill some doubt into the mind of weak souls, like you are trying to do, he might drag more into Hell, misery loves company.

Are you seriously comparing my questions about Fatima with what the devil is doing?

MyrnaM said this,

So if he can instill some doubt into the mind of weak souls, like you are trying to do, he might drag more into Hell, misery loves company.

And then this,

Boy, you must have guilty conscience, first Judas now the devil.

Playing the innocent, are we!

And then turning it back on me!

You need to take a look at yourself.